Given that DHS is a massive law enforcement entity, you'd think that executive level leadership over a massive law enforcement agency type experience would be important.

Then again, competence and ability has never been a requirement for this administration.

You misunderstand what DHS is. While there are law enforcement agencies within it, it isn't itself a "law enforcement entity." Inclusion of entities such as FEMA, the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, Office of Health Affairs and the Science and Technology directorate would suggest that. FEMA's budget (FY 2012) was $10.6B. Total DHS funding was about $57B. FEMA's budget was, I think, the largest single outlay for a component part of the DHS.

Additionally, the missions of DHS include things like domestic cybersecurity and ensuring resilience to disaster. While these are related to law enforcement, they are hardly the sole domain of law enforcement.

"Perhaps I think Pentagon experience is experience is security. And perhaps you don't"

Perhaps I am missing something here, but I was under the impression that his experience at the Pentagon had to do with legal issues pertaining to security-- certainly an element here, but not really the central one IMHO.

1. He is not unqualified.2. His military experience is leading large portions of it.3. Relevant work experience includes serving as AF General Counsel, DoD General Counsel, where he led 10,000 employees, and where he was instrumental in forming and articulating the nation's drone policy. 4. You not liking him does not make him inexperienced. 5. And you not liking attorneys does not make his nomination sound.

The myth of police as crime‐fighters has been conveyed to the American people through television dramas, comic strips, and newspaper articles. It conjures up in one's mind an image of a police officer doing a dangerous job that requires him or her to outshoot, outpunch, and outwit dangerous criminals. For most American police, there is little correspondence between this image and reality. In a major metropolitan area (where crime rates are the highest), half of the officers in the local department will not make a felony arrest during a given year. The total annual rate of weapon discharges per hundred police officers is in the range of two to six.

What do the police really do?

Three functions

Even though we refer to the police as law enforcement officers, the enforcement of criminal law (in other words, investigating crime and apprehending criminals) is only one of several functions that the police perform. The functions of the American police include providing basic social services, maintaining order, and controlling crime.

•In the area of social service, the police help people who need emergency assistance, whether it is giving first aid or finding lost children. Typically, over 50 percent of the telephone calls to the police requesting assistance involve social service as compared with less than 20 percent relating to crime.

•Among the order‐maintenance activities are traffic control, crowd control, resolving domestic disputes, and moving prostitutes from the streets. The focus of order maintenance is on handling situations to preserve the peace rather than enforcing the letter of the law. The appropriate order‐maintenance solution may be making an arrest (for example, in case of domestic violence), but it often consists of some less formal action (for example, getting an illegal panhandler to move on).

•In the area of crime control, the police engage in a range of activities, such as patrol and criminal investigation.

Major responsibilities

The American Bar Association's Standards Relating to the Urban Police Function lists these 11 responsibilities: •To identify criminal offenders and criminal activity and, when appropriate, to apprehend offenders and participate in later court proceedings.

•To reduce the opportunities for the commission of some crimes through preventive patrol and other measures.

•To aid individuals who are in danger of physical harm.

•To protect constitutional guarantees.

•To facilitate the movement of people and vehicles.

•To assist those who cannot care for themselves.

•To resolve conflict.

•To identify problems that are potentially serious law enforcement or government problems.

•To create and maintain a feeling of security in the community.

•To promote and preserve civil order.

•To provide other services on an emergency basis.

Factors shaping police work

Several factors shape what the police do. Twenty‐four hour availability broadens police contacts with the public. People call the police because there is no other agency available. A disadvantage is that such availability gives police a heavy workload. The authority to use force stamps police work with a uniqueness that sets it apart from other lines of work. Force includes the right to use deadly force, to arrest people, and to use physical force. Whatever aspect of the police mission is emphasized—whether it involves checking on suspicious persons who appear to be out of place or responding to reports of crime—the police have to be willing, in the last analysis, to threaten force and to back up the threat with action. Discretion leaves an imprint on all areas of policing. Police are often free to choose among alternative courses of action or inaction. They routinely rely on their own experience, training, common sense, and judgment to make decisions involving the life and liberty of citizens. Examples of discretionary decision making include decisions involving arrests, traffic tickets, deadly force, and domestic abuse. In each of these situations, officers determine whether or not to invoke the power of the law.

MARINE: Strict Rules Of Engagement Are Killing More Americans Than Enemy In This Lost War

Paul Szoldra

When I deployed to Afghanistan as an infantry squad leader in 2004, I had the utmost confidence in my superiors, our mission to restore order to Afghanistan, and to help the Afghan people.

At the time of my deployment, we had clear rules of engagement (ROE): if you ever feel that your life is threatened, you can respond with force to include deadly force.

Beyond this, we also patrolled our area of operations with the knowledge that if we ever radioed "troops in contact," our requests for air or artillery support would be approved.

Thankfully, I never had to make that radio call. During my seven-month tour with 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marines in Khost Province, combat was light. We encountered many more weapons caches than we did enemy attacks. I never once fired my weapon. The hotspot at the time was Iraq. Our war, it seemed, was won.

When I returned and transitioned to a role as an infantry instructor in 2006, my peers—who only had deployed to Iraq—quipped that I was part of the “forgotten war.”

And where are we today?

Six years after hearing those jokes, the war is forgotten by everyone except the men and women who continue to fight it. My mostly quiet wartime memory of 2005 has exploded into a battlefield of heavy combat with the casualties to go along with it.

And yet all the blood, destruction—all the efforts of our military—cannot change the unfortunate and highly probable outcome that our 2014 exit from Afghanistan will be marked as a failure.

I don’t want to believe it, but we are losing this war.

Each day our soldiers and Marines leave the wire, only to face increasing attacks from a determined enemy. An insurgency that continues to enjoy support—even from inside a corrupt government in Kabul as well as Islamabad.

And they don’t just face Taliban AK-47s and improvised explosives. They also continue to face the guns of their supposed allies, Afghan National Army and Police forces, who have killed over 30 U.S. military personnel just this year alone.

As we try to win hearts and minds, the Taliban uses fear—and in a culture of tribalism and tradition, it is fear that works.

Instead of being afraid of the might of U.S. firepower, enemy fighters use our rules of engagement and restrictions on air support against us. When faced with a split-second decision of whether to shoot, soldiers many times must hesitate—or be investigated. Or, as in the case of the 2009 Battle of Ganjgal, excessive restrictions on air and artillery assets unfortunately meant excessive American deaths.

“We are willing to restrict ourselves to the point of helplessness to avoid even a possibility of civilian casualties,” said one military officer who I’ll refer to as Evan, speaking on condition of anonymity. “I have personally watched the same man arm and disarm 12 improvised explosive devices (IEDs) over a week, with no strikes allowed due to collateral concerns.”

The failure of the war does not rest at the hands of the brave troops who patrol every day. It lies with top military leadership and politicians, who have effectively choked our troops so badly that their mission has become impossible.

“I cannot emphasize just how badly the pullout date has ruined our efforts over here,” said Evan. “Down to the lowest soldier, there is a very palpable sense that everything we’ve done is too little, too late.”

As many leaders and politicians continue to plead with a public weary to continue their support for the war, they say, as they said similarly during the war in Vietnam, that “the deaths of our soldiers should not be in vain.”

I disagree. The death of a brother in arms, while tragic and equally heartbreaking, should not be used as a political tool. The fallen heroes of this war are lost forever and will never see a battlefield again. They should not be used to further justify its expansion.

There is an economic theory that supports my reasoning: It’s called a sunk cost dilemma. The theory presents a problem of having to choose between ending an activity immediately or choosing to continue with an uncertain outcome that already involves considerable investment. The investment, whether it be time, money, or in the case of the Afghan war, lives, can never be recovered, and is called a sunk cost.

I believe that we should allow our soldiers to be able to fight this war. As Lt Col. Christian Cabaniss tells his Marines in the documentary Obama’s War, “Make no mistake, we are experts in the application of violence.”

Despite being experts at warfare, the military, much like a professional boxer, will never win a fight when their hands are tied behind their back. Unfortunately, it is our own Generals and politicians that have done the tying.

“We’ve embraced the counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine without remembering to maintain the true power of the US military, which is an unstoppable killing machine,” Evan told me. “Now the buzz words are ‘development’ [and] ‘partnership’. These things brief well, but they must be used hand in hand with a tolerant and permissive ROE that allows us to flex our full potential when we need to.”

As we look forward to 2014 and our strategy of withdrawal that President Obama has announced, I can tell you some of what the future holds. As the example of the sunk cost dilemma states, we are choosing to continue with an uncertain outcome. This is not entirely true.

If we do not allow our military to carry out their mission—to locate, close with, and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver, as is the infantry’s goal, and support them with the assets they need, then the next two years will be marked with more American deaths, many more wounded, continued training failure and eventual stall in recruitment of Afghan security forces, and a country left in ruins.

Make no mistake: our enemy is resilient. But they are not impossible to defeat. When our Marines and soldiers were unleashed—with tanks, artillery, air support, and rules of engagement that favored the U.S. instead of the insurgency during the second Battle of Fallujah in 2004—the fighters soon realized how tough our military was.

“We are fighting, but the Marines keep coming!” said a frantic Fallujah insurgent to other fighters in an intercepted radio communication. “We are shooting, but the Marines won’t stop!”

We need to stop lying to ourselves.

Let our troops do the job that we, united as Americans, know they can do, or withdraw them immediately and save us a predictable and tragic two more years of war.

Here’s the guy Obama is expected to nominate to replace Janet Napolitano. He’s talking about being in NYC on 9/11:

“When that bright and beautiful day, a day something like this, was shattered by the largest terrorist attack on our homeland in history, I wandered the streets of New York that day and wonderered, and asked, ‘What can I do?’ Since then, I have tried to devote myself to answering that question. I love this country. I care about the safety of our people. I believe in public service. And I remain loyal to you, Mr. President.”

He remains loyal to Barack Obama? What happened to supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and bearing true faith and allegiance to the same? Isn’t that how it’s supposed to go?

Or did that dusty old piece of parchment get snubbed on purpose? Obama certainly doesn’t have much use for it when it interferes with his whims.

Gather ’round, kids. We’ve made a few changes:

“I pledge allegiance to Barack, not the United States of America, and to the repugnance for which he stands, one narcissist, his own god, insufferable, with little but injustice for all.”

No, let's not, and here's why: every time I shoot down one of your arguments you change the target. First you claim DHS is a law enforcement agency. Then you say "my position is that a bar card and fundraising for the dems aren't qualifiers to run DHS. This country is suffering enough due to empty suits in positions of power." Now, confronted with the fact that this position is also false, you change arguments again. Let me repeat, just because you don't like someone (or his policy) doesn't make them unqualified.

I have already: "You misunderstand what DHS is. While there are law enforcement agencies within it, it isn't itself a "law enforcement entity." Inclusion of entities such as FEMA, the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, Office of Health Affairs and the Science and Technology directorate would suggest that. FEMA's budget (FY 2012) was $10.6B. Total DHS funding was about $57B. FEMA's budget was, I think, the largest single outlay for a component part of the DHS.

Additionally, the missions of DHS include things like domestic cybersecurity and ensuring resilience to disaster. While these are related to law enforcement, they are hardly the sole domain of law enforcement."

Then you changed the subject. Again.

I know quite a bit about the dysfunction within DHS and the jeopardy it places the public in. Do you think the political hacks in other sensitive positions have served this country well?

As do I. And that isn't the issue. The issue is that you think that Johnson is an "empty suit." Or thought that, until corrected. I'm done with the conversation, GM.

(I should stay out, but...) I wrote "totally unqualified" and should clarify. Anyone who can get nominated and confirmed is arguably qualified. And legal training is a plus, not a minus, same for loyalty if it is well-directed.

Johnson's "policy making role" was to advise policy makers; he was not a policy maker. (No one said he was.) On that, he has no experience or track record, which unfortunately is a plus in the eyes of the President - for confirmation purposes.

A better question than is he qualified: who is MOST qualified for that job? On that I would start with the people who have run the most similar operations successfully. If you started at the top of that list and headed down it forever, his name will never come up.

Is management and policy making experience a crucial qualification for a job managing the performance of 230,000 security and law enforcement agents? I think so!

I have already: "You misunderstand what DHS is. While there are law enforcement agencies within it, it isn't itself a "law enforcement entity." Inclusion of entities such as FEMA, the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, Office of Health Affairs and the Science and Technology directorate would suggest that. FEMA's budget (FY 2012) was $10.6B. Total DHS funding was about $57B. FEMA's budget was, I think, the largest single outlay for a component part of the DHS.

Additionally, the missions of DHS include things like domestic cybersecurity and ensuring resilience to disaster. While these are related to law enforcement, they are hardly the sole domain of law enforcement."

Then you changed the subject. Again.

I know quite a bit about the dysfunction within DHS and the jeopardy it places the public in. Do you think the political hacks in other sensitive positions have served this country well?

As do I. And that isn't the issue. The issue is that you think that Johnson is an "empty suit." Or thought that, until corrected. I'm done with the conversation, GM.

As I posted earlier in an attempt to explain to someone lacking any real world experience in law enforcement, law enforcement is a big umbrella where a variety of tasks not directly related to the core mission of enforcement also fall to both individuals and agencies. As an example, many Sheriff's Office's have medical care expenses for inmates at the jail as the biggest budget item. That doesn't mean the county jail is a hospital. What do you define DHS as then?

Exclusive--Border Patrol Rep Claims Agents Being Ordered to Stand Down

by Brandon Darby 3 Oct 2013

The National Border Patrol Council has come forward to reveal to the American public once again management practices that could be risking the lives of Americans -- and the lives of illegal immigrants.

Shawn Moran, Vice President of the National Border Patrol Council, spoke exclusively with Breitbart News and claimed that Border Patrol management has begun the practice of ordering Border Patrol Agents to stand down and cease pursuing drug smugglers, human smugglers and traffickers, and illegal aliens. He also warned it could lead to illegal aliens entering the country from nations associated with terrorism.

“It doesn’t matter whether it’s drugs, bodies, or how large the group is, our agents are being ordered to stand down by Border Patrol management,” said Moran. "I have received reports from our agents in every single sector from San Diego to the Rio Grande Valley in Texas that they are receiving these orders."

"They are not being relieved in place, they are simply being told that someone else is being dispatched, but none of us have seen that occur," he explained. "We are simply being ordered to stand down and stop tracking and trying to apprehend the criminals.” He discussed the importance of agents being relieved in place when tracking an individual or group.

"Border Patrol senior leadership says the stand downs are a means of addressing budgetary shortfalls and making sure agents aren’t working longer shifts," Moran said. "The Border Patrol has a larger budget than ever, but the agents on the ground have not seen the benefits of an increased budget. The increased budget has not trickled down to the men and women with their boots on the ground."

"They are placing the budgetary concerns before the security of our border," Moran stated. "We have situations where top-level bureaucrats in the U.S. Border Patrol and in the Customs and Border Protection Agency are receiving massive bonuses -- some up to $64,000 --- for finding ways to reduce the pay Border Patrol Agents receive."

"Groups that are outside of human trafficking, human smuggling, and drug smuggling are going to exploit these stand down orders as well, not only cartels but illegal aliens from nations that are tied to terrorism,” he warned.

Homeland Security nominee Jeh Johnson orchestrated a controversial prosecution of a highly decorated immigration officer in what became the first prosecution of a law enforcement official for civil rights violations. The case attracted national condemnation from advocates of law enforcement and ultimately led to a federal commutation.

Immigration and Naturalization Service agent Joseph Occhipinti was sentenced to 37 months in prison for an illegal consent search of Dominican-drug cartel connected businesses as part of Project Bodega in 1991.

Project Bodega was based on intelligence that the Dominican cartels were buying up Dominican-owned groceries in New York City to help distribute drugs.

Occhipinti made a series of routine consent searches of Dominicans in and around those shops that landed him in hot water. He did not fill out the paperwork but asked suspects if they would consent to the searches. Occhipinti said they did and he thought the matter was over. It wasn’t.

Though normally dealt with administratively, Occhipinti’s searches became the subject of a federal inquiry once Johnson, who had previously worked with Occhipinti on Project Esquire as an assistant U.S. Attorney, saw the case as a way of advancing himself politically, says Occhipinti.

As the former INS Chief for Anti-Smuggling, Occhipinti led numerous drug interdiction programs and task force operations that successfully prosecuted major organized crime figures. For five years, Occhipinti worked undercover infiltrating the ”Dominican Federation,” a front for the cartel, where he exposed corruption and is credited for one of the largest seizures recorded.

According to congressional and court testimony, during a police homicide investigation in 1988, Occhipinti uncovered evidence that a Dominican drug cartel reportedly employed a former federal prosecutor who allegedly held private sex and drug parties to get more lenient sentences for the cartel’s members. Occhipinti’s Project Esquire had revealed that there was corruption within Johnson’s office before it was mysteriously shut down.

Occhipinti testified that Johnson should have recused himself as the prosecutor for conflict of interest since he was intimately involved in the Operation Esquire investigation, which alleged official corruption at the SDNY [the Southern District of New York], Occhipinti testified before Congress in 2000.

Occhipinti pressed forward through the support of state prosecutors and developed “Operation Bodega” to target the cartel that was using area grocery stores to facilitate their drug trafficking and money laundering activities.

As Occhipinti got closer to identifying the web of corruption, there was political pushback, he says.

On April 4, 1989, the ”Dominican Federation”, a front for the Dominican drug cartel according to the NYPD, held a press conference at City Hall calling the operation a ”Republican Conspiracy” that was sabotaging the 1990 census. They accused the operation of violating the federal civil rights of hard working Dominican merchants.

The Occhipinti trial and verdict received national attention and became the subject of congressional inquiries. According to Occhipinti, Professor Bennett L. Gershman of Pace University, the nation’s leading expert on prosecutorial misconduct, has testified that the Occhipinti case is one of the worst examples of misconduct he has ever seen. Gershman, however, did not recall making those comments when reached by The Daily Caller.

Johnson, who was then an assistant U.S. attorney, did not advise the grand jury of exculpatory evidence from a NYPD detective that clearly showed the involvement of a Dominican drug cartel in the public relations campaign, Occhipinti told the House Judiciary Committee in 2000.

Occhipinti says that Johnson should have recused himself because of his close social ties to Judge Constance Baker Motley, the federal judge for whom he had clerked and with whom he remained close. During the trial it appeared that Johnson had some ex-parte communications with the judge without the approval of the defense. Johnson also went to the media and criticized reporters who defended Occhipinti.

A New American (Brooklyn, NY), article (February 21, 1994) reported on

There was bad blood between [Johnson] and Occhipinti as a result of the Project Esquire investigation of corruption within [Johnson’s] office. Further some of Johnson’s associates alleged that he had boasted that an Occhipinti conviction would land him a high-paying private sector job—a prediction that was fulfilled. Today, Johnson’s office walls at the prestigious New York law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkin, Wharton and Garrison are adorned with artists’ renderings of the Occhipinti trial, which Johnson regards as “trophies.”

Reached for comment at his home, Occhipinti stressed that he harbors no ill will toward Johnson but said that it is “undeniable” that Johnson’s aggressive prosecution of Occhipinti has harmed law enforcement’s “ability to do their job.”

“It’s not just me saying it,” Occhipinti told The Daily Caller. “Ever since the trial there has been a chilling effect on law enforcement’s ability to do routine police work, especially as it relates to immigration [issues].”

Occhipinti wouldn’t comment on whether he thought Johnson was a good choice to head Homeland Security, saying only that he had moved on with his life.

Occhipinti sounded worried throughout the call. He had declined comment in a previous email but consented to speak after this reporter followed up.

The case has had political implications. Then likely mayoral candidate Rudi Guiliani backed a new trial for Occhipinti. Borough President Guy V. Molinari of Staten Island resigned his involvement with the Bush-Quayle campaign because he felt not enough was being done to address Occhipinti’s case by Justice Department officials. President George H. W. Bush ultimately gave Occhipinti a commutation over the objections of his own Justice Department.

Occhipinti was put into jail with the very same Dominican drug lords he put away. “I’m lucky to be alive,” he said. Today Occhipinti heads the National Police Defense Foundation, one of the nation’s largest law enforcement foundations, where he helps defend other police officers from going through what he did.

Occhipinti hopes the Obama administration takes up his pardon request. The Obama White House has pardoned several drug traffickers but rejected Occhipinti’s request.

Johnson could not be reached for comment. He pledged his loyalty to President Obama during the nomination speech earlier this week.

Law-enforcement officials tell NBC News that that Paul Anthony Ciancia, 23, entered the airport around 9:20 a.m., Pacific Time, and opened fire inside Terminal 3. The Associated Press also reported that authorities named Ciancia as the suspect.

Law-enforcement officials tell NBC News that that Paul Anthony Ciancia, 23, entered the airport around 9:20 a.m., Pacific Time, and opened fire inside Terminal 3. The Associated Press also reported that authorities named Ciancia as the suspect.

The Central Intelligence Agency is building a vast database of international money transfers that includes millions of Americans' financial and personal data, officials familiar with the program say.

The program, which collects information from U.S. money-transfer companies including Western Union, WU -2.06% is carried out under the same provision of the Patriot Act that enables the National Security Agency to collect nearly all American phone records, the officials said. Like the NSA program, the mass collection of financial transactions is authorized by a secret national-security court, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

The CIA, as a foreign-intelligence agency, is barred from targeting Americans in its intelligence collection. But it can conduct domestic operations for foreign intelligence purposes. The CIA program is meant to fill what U.S. officials see as an important gap in their ability to track terrorist financing world-wide, current and former U.S. officials said.

The program serves as the latest example of blurred lines between foreign and domestic intelligence as technology globalizes many activities carried out by citizens and terrorists alike. The CIA program also demonstrates how other U.S. spy agencies, aside from the NSA, are using the same legal authority to collect data such as details of financial transactions.

In this case, the secret surveillance court has authorized the Federal Bureau of Investigation to work with the CIA to collect large amounts of data on international transactions, including those of Americans, as part of the agency's terrorism investigations.

The data collected by the CIA doesn't include any transactions that are solely domestic, and the majority of records collected are solely foreign, but they include those to and from the U.S., as well. In some cases, it does include data beyond basic financial records, such as U.S. Social Security numbers, which can be used to tie the financial activity to a specific person. That has raised concerns among some lawmakers who learned about the program this summer, according to officials briefed on the matter.

Former U.S. government officials familiar with the program said it has been useful in discovering terrorist relationships and financial patterns. If a CIA analyst searches the data and discovers possible suspicious terrorist activity in the U.S., the analyst provides that information to the FBI, a former official said.

The CIA declined to comment on specific programs but said its operations comply with the law and face oversight from Congress, the FISA Court and internal watchdogs. "The CIA protects the nation and upholds the privacy rights of Americans by ensuring that its intelligence-collection activities are focused on acquiring foreign intelligence and counterintelligence in accordance with U.S. laws," said agency spokesman Dean Boyd.

The FBI declined to comment.

A U.S. intelligence official said that any spy-agency operation under FISA Court orders require "strict compliance with the law and with those court orders." Orders would include procedures to safeguard the privacy of people in the U.S.; require training of those with access to information; prohibit searches not specifically authorized; and limit how long data may be retained, the official said.

In a typical money transfer, a person goes to a company such as Western Union and uses cash or a credit card to send funds to someone else. The recipient can pick up funds at a local money-transfer office. This process differs from, say, a bank transfer, in which funds might be moved from one account to another.

Details about money transfers are kept by the companies providing the service; that information is turned over to the CIA under court orders. Former officials named wire-transfer giant Western Union as a participant.

The full roster of participants couldn't be learned. Other large, global money-transfer companies include MoneyGram; there are numerous smaller firms.

"We collect consumer information to comply with the Bank Secrecy Act and other laws," said Western Union spokeswoman Luella D'Angelo, naming a law that requires banks to report suspicious transactions. "In doing so, we also protect our consumers' privacy and work to prevent consumer fraud."

A MoneyGram spokeswoman said, "We have reporting obligations related to suspicious transactions, money laundering and other financial crimes around the world. The laws to which we are subject generally prohibit us from discussing details." She also said, "We value our customers' privacy and work hard to protect it."

The data is obtained from companies in bulk, then placed in a dedicated database. Then, court-ordered rules are applied to "minimize," or mask, the information about people in the U.S. unless that information is deemed to be of foreign-intelligence interest, a former U.S. official said.

A limited number of analysts are allowed to search the database with queries that meet court-approved standards. This is similar to the way NSA handles its phone-data program.

Money-transfer companies are "highly, highly aware of their obligations under the Patriot Act," said Robert Pargac, a director in global investigations and compliance at Navigant Consulting Inc. who has worked at several such companies. Western Union said last month it would be spending about 4% of its revenue in 2014 on compliance with rules under the Patriot Act, the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control and other anti-money-laundering and terrorist-financing requirements.

The likely existence of bulk collection programs other than phone-records data has been mentioned in a recently declassified opinion from a judge on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which approves such programs.

This past September, the Director of National Intelligence declassified FISA Court opinions that sharply criticized NSA for operating the phone program in violation of court-ordered privacy standards. The court also criticized NSA for repeatedly misrepresenting surveillance programs to it. Former officials said that CIA has run into some compliance issues, but they weren't on par with the problems NSA encountered.

Some officials who have overseen surveillance programs, like Timothy Edgar, a former top privacy lawyer at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the National Security Council in the Bush and Obama administrations, say it is time for the government to make known what categories of data are being obtained under broad Patriot Act authorities.

"The public has a right to know about the broad outlines of how the government is collecting information on them," he said, noting that the FISA Court has noted the existence of other collection programs. "As a matter of basic good governance, the government should be more transparent about these kinds of collection programs."

The CIA and the Treasury Department have a different program that collects transactions between financial institutions from the Belgian cooperative known as the Society for Worldwide Interbank Communication, or Swift. That program doesn't collect data from person-to-person transfers.

The money-transfer program appears to have been inspired by details of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist plot, in which the al Qaeda hijackers were able to move about $300,000 to U.S.-based bank accounts without arousing suspicion. In part, it was because the transactions were comparably small and fit the pattern of the remittances used by immigrants or foreign visitors to send money home.

Some of the transfers were between bank accounts, but some moved through person-to-person transfers. In 2000, Sept. 11 plot facilitator Ramzi Binalshibh made a series of transfers, totaling more than $10,000, from Germany to the U.S., where they were collected by hijacker Marwan al-Shehhi. Two transfers were through MoneyGram and two through Western Union.

After the 2001 attacks, the CIA worked with Western Union, which voluntarily helped set up a program to collect data on money transfers between the U.S. and overseas, as well as purely foreign ones with voluntary compliance from companies, as has been previously reported.

That program was institutionalized by 2006 and continues under a controversial authority tucked into a part of the Patriot Act known as Section 215. That law permits the government to obtain "tangible things," including records, as long as the government shows it is reasonable to believe they are "relevant" to a terrorism investigation.

Under that provision, the U.S. government secretly interpreted the term "relevant" to permit collection of records on millions of people not necessarily under suspicion. That secret interpretation, used to justify the legality of the phone-records program, was brought to light in the wake of the revelations by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.

The interpretation also was used by CIA as the legal underpinning of its bulk financial-records effort under the money-transfer program, officials said.

Money transfer forms differ depending on location and type. But they ask for the names, addresses and telephone numbers of senders and receivers. Depending on the transfer, senders and receivers also may be asked to provide the date and place of their birth. In most locations in the U.S., people sending $1,000 or more must provide an ID such as a driver's license. People sending $3,000 or more must provide additional ID, such as a Social Security number or passport.

Lawmakers have asked repeatedly whether intelligence agencies are using the Patriot Act to collect financial or other information in bulk outside the phone-records program. In public forums, officials have either mentioned that the information is classified or focused on whether the NSA collects such data, with no mention of the CIA or other agencies. Several lawmakers from both parties are seeking to curb the ability to use the Patriot Act for bulk collection of records.

Cindy and I were just watching a NatGeo piece on what would happen if a mini-black hole (100 yards across) were to hit earth. Short answer, it would travel through and come out the other side in about six minutes and hurtle along its merry way, leaving a de-stabilized earth core in its wake, quite possibly setting off every major volcano on the planet, threatening life itself, what BD's post describes would happen on a planet wide basis.

It's easy enough to play ostrich on the chances of a mini-black hole hitting earth, but this is one helluva lot scarier.

Do you ever read Gregg Easterbrook? He has recurring theme that boils down to this: why has NASA funding been cut? There are enough meteors that come close to Earth, including some that serve to be wicked surprises that diminishing space travel and related themes could spell the demise of mankind. I'll look at some point soon to try to find an example.

"He has recurring theme that boils down to this: why has NASA funding been cut? There are enough meteors that come close to Earth, including some that serve to be wicked surprises that diminishing space travel and related themes could spell the demise of mankind."

I have been skeptical of NASA and space spending, but this point is a good answer as to why public investment of this kind may be well-justified. If true, it is one more reason why we should not settle for economic policies that leave us broke, stagnant and mostly unemployed. These programs and capabilities are expensive!